ASME PTB-2-2009 Guide to Life Cycle Management of Pressure Equipment Integrity PTB-2-2009 Guide to Life Cycle Management of Pressure Equipment Integrity Prepared by: J R Sims, Jr Becht Engineering Co., Inc Date of Issuance: June 30, 2009 This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by ASME Pressure Technology Codes and Standards (PTCS) through the ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC) Neither ASME, the author, nor others involved in the preparation or review of this document, nor any of their respective employees, members or persons acting on their behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by ASME or others involved in the preparation or review of this document, or any agency thereof The views and opinions of the authors, contributors and reviewers of the document expressed herein not necessarily reflect those of ASME or others involved in the preparation or review of this document, or any agency thereof ASME does not “approve,” “rate”, or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device or activity ASME does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a standard against liability for infringement of any applicable letters patent, nor assume any such liability Users of a code or standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this code or standard ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990 Copyright © 2009 by THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS All rights reserved Printed in the U.S.A PTB-2-2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices vi List of Tables xii Foreword .xiii Scope Abbreviations Definitions Organization of this Guide Overview 6 Power (Steam) Boilers 6.1 Specification (Purchase) of Power (Steam) Boilers 6.2 Design and Construction of Power (Steam) Boilers 6.3 Operation of Power (Steam) Boilers 6.4 In-service Inspection of Power (Steam) Boilers 6.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Power (Steam) Boilers 10 6.6 Repair of Power (Steam) Boilers 10 Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) 12 7.1 Specification (Purchase) of HRSGs 12 7.2 Design and Construction of HRSGs 14 7.3 Operation of HRSGs 14 7.4 In-service Inspection of HRSGs 15 7.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of HRSGs 15 7.6 Repair of HRSGs 16 Heating Boilers 17 8.1 Specification (Purchase) of Heating Boilers 17 8.2 Designs and Construction of Heating Boilers 19 8.3 Operation of Heating Boilers 19 8.4 In-service Inspection of Heating Boilers 19 8.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Heating Boilers 20 8.6 Repair of Heating Boilers 21 Unfired Steam Boilers 22 9.1 Specification (Purchase) of Unfired Steam Boilers 22 9.2 Designs and Construction of Unfired Steam Boilers 24 9.3 Operation of Unfired Steam Boilers 24 iii PTB-2-2009 9.4 In-service Inspection of Unfired Steam Boilers 24 9.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Unfired Steam Boilers 25 9.6 Repair of Unfired Steam Boilers 26 10 Typical Pressure Vessels 27 10.1 Specification (Purchase) of Typical Pressure Vessels 27 10.2 Design and Construction of Typical Pressure Vessels 29 10.3 Operation of Typical Pressure Vessels 30 10.4 In-service Inspection of Typical Pressure Vessels 30 10.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Typical Pressure Vessels 31 10.6 Repair of Typical Pressure Vessels 32 11 Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels .33 11.1 Specification (Purchase) of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 33 11.2 Design and Construction of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 35 11.3 Operation of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 37 11.4 In-service Inspection of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 37 11.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 38 11.6 Repair of Large, Heavy Wall and High Temperature Pressure Vessels 38 12 High Pressure Vessels 40 12.1 Specification (Purchase) of High Pressure Vessels 40 12.2 Design and Construction of High Pressure Vessels 42 12.3 Operation of High Pressure Vessels 42 12.4 In-service Inspection of High Pressure Vessels 42 12.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of High Pressure Vessels 43 12.6 Repair of High Pressure Vessels 43 13 Heat Exchangers 45 13.1 Specification (Purchase) of Heat Exchangers 45 13.2 Design and Construction of Heat Exchangers 47 13.3 Operation of Heat Exchangers 48 13.4 In-service Inspection of Heat Exchangers 49 13.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Heat Exchangers 49 13.6 Repair of Heat Exchangers 50 14 Storage Tanks 51 14.1 Specification (Purchase) of Storage Tanks 51 14.2 Design and Construction of Storage Tanks 53 iv PTB-2-2009 14.3 Operation of Storage Tanks 53 14.4 In-service Inspection of Typical Pressure Vessels 53 14.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Storage Tanks 54 14.6 Repair of Storage Tanks 55 15 Piping Systems 56 15.1 Specification (Purchase) of Piping Systems 56 15.2 Design and Construction of Piping Systems 58 15.3 Operation of Piping Systems 59 15.4 In-service Inspection of Piping Systems 59 15.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Piping Systems 60 15.6 Repair of Piping Systems 60 16 Acquisition (Purchase) of Components, Including Fittings 61 17 Post-construction Documents for Components, Including Fittings 63 18 Overpressure Protection Systems 64 18.1 Specification (Purchase) of Overpressure Protection Systems 64 18.2 Design and Construction of Overpressure Protection Systems 65 18.3 Operation of Overpressure Protection Systems 66 18.4 In-service Inspection of Overpressure Protection Systems 66 18.5 Fitness-for-service Analysis of Overpressure Protection Systems 66 18.6 Repair of Overpressure Protection Systems 66 19 Specific Tasks 67 Acknowledgments 228 v PTB-2-2009 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Standards Referenced 68 American Petroleum Institute (API) Standards .68 A-1 5UE Recommended Practice for Ultrasonic Evaluation of Pipe Imperfections 68 A-2 Publication 327 Aboveground Storage Tank Standards: A Tutorial 69 A-3 API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration 70 A-4 RP 520 Part I Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries, Part I: Sizing and Selection .72 A-5 RP 520 Part II Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries, Part II: Installation 73 A-6 Std 521 Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems 74 A-7 Std 526 Flanged Steel Pressure Relief Valves .75 A-8 Std 530 Calculation of Heater-Tube Thickness in Petroleum Refineries 76 A-9 RP 534 Heat Recovery Steam Generators 77 A-10 Std 560 Fired Heaters for General Refinery Service 78 A-11 API 570 Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In-service Piping Systems 79 A-12 RP 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry 81 A-13 RP 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels (Towers, Drums, Reactors, Heat Exchangers, and Condensers) 82 A-14 RP 573 Inspection of Fired Boilers and Heaters 83 A-15 RP 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System Components 84 A-16 RP 575 Guidelines and Methods for Inspection of Existing Atmospheric and Lowpressure Storage Tanks 85 A-17 RP 576 Inspection of Pressure-Relieving Devices .86 A-18 RP 577 Welding Inspection and Metallurgy 87 A-19 RP 578 Material Verification Program for New and Existing Alloy Piping Systems 88 A-20 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-For-Service .89 A-21 RP-580 Risk-Based Inspection .90 A-22 RP-581 Risk-Based Inspection: Base Resource Document 91 A-23 RP 582 Welding Guidelines for the Chemical, Oil and Gas Industries .92 A-24 RP 591 Process Valve Qualification Procedure 93 A-25 Std 594 Check Valves: Flanged, Lug, Wafer and Butt-Welding 94 A-26 Std 598 Valve Inspection and Testing 95 vi PTB-2-2009 A-27 Std API 600/ISO 10434 Bolted Bonnet Steel Gate Valves for Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries 96 A-28 Std 602 Steel Gate, Globe and Check Valves for Sizes DN 100 and Smaller for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries 98 A-29 Std 607 Testing of Valves-Fire Type—Testing Requirements 100 A-30 Std 608 Metal Ball Valves-Flanged, Threaded and Butt-Welding Ends 101 A-31 Std 609 Butterfly Valves: Double Flanged, Lug- and Water-Type 102 A-32 Std 620 Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-pressure Storage Tanks 103 A-33 RP 621 Reconditioning of Metallic Gate, Globe, and Check Valves 105 A-34 RP 622 Type Testing of Process Valve Packing for Fugitive Emissions 106 A-35 Std 650 Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage 107 A-36 RP 651 Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Storage Tanks 108 A-37 RP 652 Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms 109 A-38 Std 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction 110 A-39 Std 660 Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers 111 A-40 Std 661 Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Service 112 A-41 Std 662, Part Plate Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services, Plate-andFrame Heat Exchangers 113 A-42 Std 662, Part Plate Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services, Brazed Aluminum Plate–Fin Heat Exchangers 114 A-43 Publication 920 Prevention of Brittle Fracture of Pressure Vessel 115 A-44 RP 934A Materials and Fabrication of 2¼Cr-1Mo, 2¼Cr-1Mo-¼V, 3Cr-1Mo and 3Cr-1Mo-¼V Steel Heavy Wall Pressure Vessels for High-Temperature, HighPressure Hydrogen Service 116 A-45 RP 934C Materials and Fabrication of 1ẳCr-ẵMo Steel Heavy Wall Pressure Vessels for High-Pressure Hydrogen Service Operating at or Below 825°F (441°C) 117 A-46 RP 934E RP for Materials and Fabrication of 1ẳCr-ẵMo and 1Cr-ẵMo Steel Pressure Vessels for Service above 825°F (441°C) 118 A-47 Publication 941 Steels for Hydrogen Service at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures in Petroleum Refineries and Petrochemical Plants 119 A-48 Publication 945 Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine Units 121 A-49 Std 1104 Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities 122 A-50 RP 1107 Pipeline Maintenance Welding Practices 123 A-51 Std 2000 Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, Nonrefrigerated and Refrigerated 124 A-52 RP 2201 Safe Hot Tapping Practices in the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries 125 vii PTB-2-2009 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standards .126 A-53 ASCE/SEI Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures 126 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standards 127 A-54 B16.1 Gray Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings (Classes 25, 125, and 250) 127 A-55 B16.3 Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings (Classes 150 and 300) .128 A-56 B16.4 Gray Iron Threaded Fittings (Classes 125 and 250) .129 A-57 B16.5 Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings 130 A-58 B16.9 Factory-Made Wrought Butt-Welding Fittings .131 A-59 B16.10 Face-to-Face and End-to-End Dimension of Valves 132 A-60 B16.11 Forged Fitting, Socket-Welding and Threaded .133 A-61 B16.14 Ferrous Pipe Plugs, Bushings, and Locknuts with Pipe Threads 134 A-62 B16.15 Cast Copper Alloy Threaded Fittings (Classes 125 and 250) .135 A-63 B16.18 Cast Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings 136 A-64 B16.20 Metallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges (Ring Joint, Spiral-Wound, and Jacketed) 137 A-65 B16.21 Nonmetallic Flat Gaskets for Pipe Flanges 139 A-66 B16.22 Wrought Copper and Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings 140 A-67 B16.24 Cast Copper Alloy Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings (Classes 150, 300, 600, 900, 1500, and 2500) 141 A-68 B16.25 Butt-Welding Ends .142 A-69 B16.26 Cast Copper Alloy Fittings for Flared Copper Tubes 143 A-70 B16.34 Valves – Flanged, Threaded, and Welding End 144 A-71 B16.36 Orifice Flanges 145 A-72 B16.39 Malleable Iron Threaded Pipe Unions 146 A-73 B16.42 Ductile Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings (Classes 150 and 300) 147 A-74 B16.47 Large Diameter Steel Flanges (NPS 26 through NPS 60 Metric/Inch Standard) 148 A-75 B16.48 Line Blanks 149 A-76 B16.50 Wrought Copper and Copper Alloy Braze-Joint Pressure Fittings .150 A-77 B31.1 Power Piping 151 A-78 B31.3 Process Piping .152 A-79 B31.5 Refrigeration Piping and Heat Transfer Components 153 A-80 B31.9 Building Services Piping 154 A-81 B31E Standard for the Seismic Design and Retrofit of Above-Ground Piping Systems .156 A-82 B31G Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines .157 viii PTB-2-2009 A-83 B36.10M Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe 159 A-84 B36.19M Stainless Steel Pipe 160 A-85 B40.100 Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments (B40.1, B40.2, B40.5, B40.6, and B40.7) 161 A-86 ASME BPE Bioprocessing Equipment 163 A-87 BPVC Section I Rules for Construction of Power Boilers 164 A-88 BPVC Section II – Materials - Part A Ferrous Material Specifications 165 A-89 BPVC Section II – Materials - Part B Nonferrous Material Specifications 166 A-90 BPVC Section II - Materials Part C Specifications for Welding Rods, Electrodes, and Filler Metals 167 A-91 BPVC Section II – Materials – Part D Materials Properties (Customary) 168 A-92 BPVC Section II – Materials – Part D Materials Properties (Metric) 169 A-93 BPVC Section IV Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers 170 A-94 BPVC Section V Nondestructive Examination 171 A-95 BPVC Section VI Recommended Rules for the Care and Operation of Heating Boilers 172 A-96 BPVC Section VII Recommended Guidelines for the Care of Power Boilers 173 A-97 BPVC Section VIII - Division Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels 174 A-98 BPVC Section VIII - Division Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels – Alternative Rules 175 A-99 BPVC Section VIII - Division Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels 176 A-100 BPVC Section IX Qualification Standard for Welding and Brazing Procedures, Welders, Brazers, and Welding and Brazing Operations 177 A-101 BPVC Section X Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels 178 A-102 BPVC Code Cases Boilers and Pressure Vessels 180 A-103 RTP-1 Reinforced Thermoset Plastic Corrosion-Resistant Equipment 181 A-104 PCC-1 Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly 183 A-105 PCC-2 Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping 184 A-106 PCC-3 Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods 185 A-107 PTC 25 Pressure Relief Devices (Performance Test Codes) 186 American Society of NonDestructive Testing Standards 187 A-108 CP-189 ASNT Standard for Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Testing Personnel 187 A-109 RP SNT-TC-1A Personnel Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing 188 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Standards 190 ix PTB-2-2009 B-8 WRC 412 Challenges and Solutions in Repair Welding for Power and Processing Plants – Proceedings of a Workshop Over the last 10 years oil, gas, petrochemical and power generation companies have placed increasing emphasis on developing cost effective, practical and reliable repair and maintenance strategies to prolong plant life Those efforts have led to the development of comprehensive guidelines for repairing welding pressure vessel and piping systems and associated equipment Procedures selected incorporate the results of major research programs conducted by the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC), Edison Welding Institute (EWI) and others to develop and evaluate repair techniques, suitable with or without PWHT Optimized methods for pressure vessels and piping systems have now been used in petrochemical and power generation service This publication focuses on the repair of creep resistant steels, e.g., Cr-Mo and Cr-Mo-V steels, and reports practical experiences The information reported from these projects has resulted in the development and validation of repair techniques for specific applications and changes in national codes, standards and recommended practices The following papers were presented at a workshop co-sponsored by PVRC and EWI on January 31-February 1, 1996 in San Diego, CA 215 PTB-2-2009 B-9 WRC 452 Recommended Practices for Local Heating of Welds in Pressure Vessels The framework for this document is based upon the American Welding Society ANSI/AWS D10.1090, Recommended Practices for Local Heating of Welds in Piping and Tubing During the process of revising this AWS document, it was recognized that it might be more appropriate to prepare a separate document pertaining to recommended practices for local heating of welds in pressure vessels At the same time, a request was received to prepare a guideline regarding postweld heat treatment of repairs for heavy wall hydroprocessing reactors This request was made by a joint industry project on aging hydroprocessing reactors Additionally, for the last several years, an ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Ad Hoc Task Group on Local PWHT, operating under the Section VIII Subgroup Fabrication and Inspection, has been developing requirements for local PWHT The confluence of these three activities is responsible for the development of this document The document in draft form has been circulated for review and commenting by various communities since May 1997 They are the Pressure Vessel Research Council, ASME Board of Pressure Technology Codes and Standards Task Group on local PWHT, AWS Subcommittee D10P on local heat treating of pipework and IIW Commission XI on pressure vessels, boilers and pipelines During the review and commenting period, a new revision on the requirements (paragraphs UW-40 and AF410, see Appendices A and B) for local PWHT in Section VIII of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code was issued in July 1998 A summary of the changes in ASME Section VIII pertaining to local PWHT are summarized below: (a) The term soak band has been added, defined and its width revised (b) The use of non-uniform width or temperature 360-degree band PWHT for attachments has been added (c) The use of local circular spot PWHT for attachments on spherical shells/heads has been added (d) The use of other local spot PWHT based upon sufficiently similar, documented experience evaluations are allowed In view of the fact that most of these issues were already discussed in the draft document (although not in terms of ASME Section VIII Code) and that incorporation of these changes will significantly delay the publication of this document, it is decided by the Pressure Vessel Research Council that this document should be published in the present form In addition, detailed guidelines for Items (c) and (d) above (Item in particular) are not available at the present time A joint industry project by the Pressure Vessel Research Council has recently been initiated to support these code changes and to establish a complete standard for local PWHT 216 PTB-2-2009 B-10 WRC 435 Evaluation of Design Margins for Section VIII, Div And of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code This bulletin contains two reports, which provide information regarding the design margin on ultimate stress used in Section VIII, Division and Division of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code The first report specifically deals with the background and technical justification involved with changing the design margin in Division from 4.0 to 3.5 This report provides the basis for reducing the margin to 3.5 and recommendations to ASME for implementing the reduction for Division 1, which has occurred through two ASME Code Cases and then in Division 1, itself, as of July 1, 1999 Section I of the code also used information in this report to supplement its justification for changing its design margin from 4.0 to 3.5 The first report discusses the effects of the change on the overall construction requirements in Division regarding the many improvements to it since the design margin of 4.0 was instituted in the 1950s The second report deals with the considerations necessary to reduce design margins even lower than 3.5 in Division and lower than 3.0 in Division Discussions in both reports include review of burst tests, failure data, failure modes—particularly fatigue and fracture and related toughness requirements, fabrication practices, improved materials, advances in welding, examination and testing and comparison with other international codes and other important aspects Results from the second report have been used to develop proposals to restructure Division to include multiple levels of design margins in stages from 3.0 to as low as 1.8, with attendant changes in design and construction requirements 217 PTB-2-2009 B-11 WRC 447 Evaluation of Operating Margins for In-Service Pressure Equipment In the design of structures, including pressure vessels and piping systems, consideration must be given to uncertainties in material properties, loading conditions, fabrication and welding, geometric shape and the design approach Although probabilistic or risk-based approaches are becoming more common, the traditional approach of applying a margin (sometimes called a “safety factor”) to one or more of the design parameters is still the predominant method for dealing with these uncertainties in the construction of new pressure equipment Many new construction codes and standards apply a margin to one or more material strength parameters For example, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division limits the primary membrane stress in materials operating below the creep regime to 2/3 of the yield strength or 1/3.5 times the tensile strength, whichever is lower This overall margin accounts for uncertainties in all of the parameters listed above, except that an additional margin is applied to certain weld seams that are not fully examined As the science of the evaluation of flaws in in-service pressure equipment advances, it is likely that probabilistic or risk-based approaches will be used extensively These approaches may be implemented through the use of partial margins (partial safety factors) applied to the individual variables which are used in the design or analysis of the equipment Appropriate values for partial margins can be determined mathematically, based on the uncertainty in the individual variables, as expressed by statistical parameters such as mean and standard deviation, and a target probability of failure However, the concept of an overall margin, as used by new construction codes, will probably continue to be useful for the evaluation of in-service equipment in many cases This study has been done to provide guidance in establishing appropriate margins on material parameters when this approach is selected In many cases, the guidance in this document will result in margins that are lower than new construction margins if the level of uncertainty in one or more of the design parameters can be reduced The recommendations in this study can be used by organizations performing flaw evaluations or re-rating equipment It is also anticipated that they will be considered by the ASME, API and other organizations that are developing standards in this area 218 PTB-2-2009 B-12 WRC 430 Review of Existing Fitness-For-Service Criteria for Crack-Like Flaws The scope of the work described in this report mainly involved a review of the current practices for making an assessment of the acceptability of a flaw, at one snapshot in time In ASME Section XI terminology, this is analogous to making a flaw-specific end of evaluation assessment using the flaw size Aspects related to flaw growth, whether period creep, or some other mechanism, are not rigorously covered in this document The main conclusion drawn as a result of this effort is that, for the most part, the existing flaw evaluation criteria are conservative when compared with experimental data Even so, there are a number of limitations associated with the application of these criteria which must be considered These include: (a) High R/t Ratio components (b) Undermatching welds (c) Questionable choice of material data (d) Poorly defined flaw size The following recommendations are made as a result of this effort (a) It is recommended that any new FFS criteria that evolve as a result of the ASME Post Construction Committee activities should be based on the failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach (b) To use such an FAD-based approach, a stress intensity factor (K) solution and limit-load solution must be available for the geometry of interest (c) It is recommended that FFS assessment procedures allow assessments at multiple levels of complexity and accuracy (d) It is recommended that the FFS assessment procedures that evolve allow flaw assessments to be performed either deterministically or probabilistically 219 PTB-2-2009 B-13 WRC 465 Technologies for the Evaluation of Non-Crack-Like Flaws in Pressurized Components—Erosion/Corrosion, Pitting, Blisters, Shell Out-Of-Roundness, Weld Misalignment, Bulges and Dents An overview, comparison and evaluation of assessment methods for non-crack-like flaws in pressurized components such as straight piping and cylindrical and spherical vessels are provided in this report The non-crack-like flaws include: flaws include local thin areas; pitting damage; hydrogen blisters and laminations; geometric irregularities such as weld misalignment, shell out-ofroundness and bulges; and external force damage that typically results in dents or dent-gouge combinations The vast majority of this work was performed by a Joint Industry Program on Fitness-For-Service administered by the Materials Properties Council working in conjunction with the API Committee on Refinery Equipment's Task Group on Fitness-For-Service The work performed by these groups forms the technical basis for API 579, and, as is shown in this report, a significant amount of the fitness-for-service technology for non-crack-like flaws that is available in the literature 220 PTB-2-2009 B-14 WRC 465 Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Bolted Joints Thermal events and transient thermal effects are known to play a major role in pressurized flanged joint leakage When a leak occurs, the engineering challenge is to understand and properly diagnose the role temperature and thermal transients in that failure and thereby specify measures necessary avoid future leaks Also, since most pressure vessel codes require the consideration of thermal effects without providing the methodology, perhaps the greater engineering challenge is to the flanged joint designer This is not only to determine temperature effects on flanged joint designs to comply with code requirements but also an evaluation of the design to assure leak free operation considering anticipated thermal events This bulletin provides a set of analytical tools and guidelines for addressing these challenges The purpose of PVRC Project 01-BFC-05 was to summarize the findings of the author’s doctoral project on the effects of temperature loads on bolted flange joints and publish a summary document providing design guidelines to deal with temperature effects and the relative magnitude of these effects Reporting on this work, the bulletin provides users with simplified thermal calculation methods that enable the flanged joint designer or field troubleshooter to determine the effect of steady state or transient temperatures on flanged joints, including an evaluation of leakage possibilities This is accomplished by the author in a readable step by step process that provides the tools to answer along the way questions such as: What increase in assembly bolt load would be sufficient to overcome anticipated thermal events? Is flange deflection caused by joint component thermal interaction sufficient to cause a leak from loss of gasket load? Could radial shearing of the gasket from differential radial expansion of the flanges or tube-sheet caused either by differences in mating flange temperatures or material properties result in failure? Is gasket crushing a possibility due to increased load caused by joint component thermal interaction? How much bolt and gasket load could be lost because of a process thermal transient, or a sudden cool-down, without failure? If insulation is applied to an operating uninsulated flanged joint, how much hotter than the flange ring might the bolts be? Is this transient sufficient cause a leak? Following an overview of bolted flanged joint response to thermal loads, causes of failure and a background description of mechanical and thermal analysis, a detailed calculation procedure is presented For simplicity, axisymmetric and generally identical mating flanges are assumed by the calculation method Detailed guidance is then provided on extending this approach to non-identical flange pairs, joints with a tube-sheet (Heat exchanger girth joints) and coverplates The method first provides steady state thermal and deformation results followed by means to calculate the steady state bolt load using component compliance An evaluation of transient of these findings and the use of a series of graphs providing the time effects by extension to reach 95% and 5% the steady state temperature for each component completes the process Appendices A through D provide additional information on the details of the calculation methodology Appendices E and F illustrate the calculation method via an available Excel spreadsheet 221 PTB-2-2009 B-15 WRC 470 Recommendations for Design of Vessels for Elevated Temperature Service This bulletin provides guidelines for the design of pressure vessels for operation at temperatures where the long term creep properties govern design The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division has a long and successful service history, including elevated temperature service, however experience has shown that in-service cracking problems can develop in pressure vessels at elevated temperature The experience indicates that the cracking has occurred at locations of high local discontinuity stresses, high local thermal gradients and weld joints The work behind this bulletin is based on industry experience with specified practices and guidelines and screen out those design practices that have had problems from those that have been successful The result is development of design rules, guidelines and mechanical design details that are recommended for pressure vessels operating in the creep regime The focus is on practical design guidelines and not on complex analytical methods The report is general in scope, however the focus is on carbon and low alloy steels It is anticipated that many of the recommendations made will become standard practice in the industry through updates to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII 222 PTB-2-2009 B-16 WRC 517 Examination of Mechanical Properties and Corrosion of High Temperature Alloys after Long Term Service Under Advanced Power Plant Boiler Conditions: The Eddystone Studies For many years heat resistant austenitic steels have been successfully used in power plants TP304H, TP321H and TP347H have been employed in the superheater and reheater sections of power boilers However, these steels were originally developed for use in chemical plants and the compositions were optimized for corrosive environments In order to use austenitic steels for more advanced fossil-fired power plants, microstructures and creep resistance recently have been substantially improved as compared to the earlier stainless steels Some of the steels developed for creep resistance have already been used in modern ultra supercritical pressure power plants The service temperatures and pressures of these power plants are presently just under 1112○F (600○C) and 3500 psig (25 MPa) In the future, advanced steam conditions up to 1292○F (700○C) and higher pressures are expected in power plants Newer high-strength and high-temperature corrosion resistant steels are required WRC Bulletin 517 reports the results of a cooperative, international investigation of these superior alloys The program participants were the Materials Properties Council, Inc (MPC) in the USA, an American utility (the owners of the Eddystone plant, Exelon Generation), Tenaris NKK Tubes, Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kyushu Institute of Technology and Nippon Steel Corp The long-term field exposure test of austenitic stainless steels was conducted at Eddystone Power Station Unit No.1, which has highest steam parameters worldwide to date The experimental tubes used were of service-exposed in the final superheater operated at steam conditions of 1170○F (632○C) and 4550 psig (31 MPa) for about ten years The new austenitic stainless steel tubes included SUPER304H®, TP347HFG, NF709®, TEMPALOY A-3®, HR3C®(TP310HCbN) and TEMPALOY CR30A® Additionally, corrosion studies were conducted to evaluate various protection schemes applicable to these alloys Finally, an exploratory study of a life assessment tool developed by MPC, the Omega Method, was conducted using circumferentially oriented specimens extracted from the thick-wall, small diameter tubes This document should serve as a valuable road map to the information required for the introduction of new alloys into advanced plant and other critical service 223 PTB-2-2009 B-17 WRC 517 Half-Bead Temper-Bead Controlled Deposition Techniques for Improvement of Fabrication and Service Performance of Cr-Mo Steels The half-bead/temper-bead/controlled deposition repair welding techniques, which utilize the thermal cycles of the second and later weld layers to temper and refine the HAZ of the first layer, have been applied in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Nuclear Code Section III for new construction since the late 1960s and Section XI for in-service repair welding of nuclear power plant components Thus, Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) may be omitted without causing degraded properties of the component; especially the base metal HAZ The extensive ASME Nuclear Code studies of SA533 and SA508 materials clearly show the efficacy of non-PWHT technique on the CMn and C-Mo steels The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) joined hands with the Ontario Hydro Co to conduct research on the Temper-Bead welding techniques employed primarily in Cr-Mo and also a low alloy steel with the Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) process Two layer temperbead refining techniques were applied in this study Different temper-bead welding parameters were utilized for obtaining complete CGHAZ refinement, in terms of the energy input of first buttering layers and fill layers The energy ratio between the second butter layer to the first layer is the controlling entity Conventional stringer bead welds with and without PWHT were made for the purpose of comparison This program was sponsored by the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) and spanned a total of years The materials used in study were SA387-11 (1 1/4Cr-1/2Mo), SA387-22 (2 1/4Cr-1Mo) and A516-70 Ontario Hydro supplied the weld coupons and the examination and testing were conducted at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville The goals of the program lay in the evaluation of the temper-bead welding techniques and thus the determination of the welding procedures pertinent to the refinement of the base metal HAZ To evaluate the weldments, a series of tests were conducted Hardness traverses across the weld metal through HAZ to base metal were taken; Macrostructural and microstructural examination was conducted using optical light microscopy The reheat cracking tendency of the weld HAZ for each of the three heats of material was evaluated using spiral notched transverse weld specimens with both small (0.125 in dia.) and large (0.350 in dia.) diameter samples Gleeble thermal simulation was applied for evaluation of the HAZ refining procedures HAZ Charpy V-notched impact tests were conducted for the temper-bead, conventional with/without PWHT welds, as well as for Gleeble simulated and UTK fabricated welds Creep rupture testing of cross weld HAZ specimens was also carried out for the different procedure conditions, in which both small and large diameter samples were utilized for testing Ontario Hydro temper-bead and conventional, UTK weave bead and conventional welds in the as-welded and PWHT conditions were tested for sensitivity to hydrogen cracking by a hydrogen charging-bend test method Stress rupture testing of longitudinal smooth bar specimens, a new test method for the evaluation of the creep ductility in different weld regions, was developed during this investigation A singular and straight CGHAZ produced by a weave bead welding technique and the overlapped CGHAZ induced by conventional deposition sequences made at UTK were also evaluated and compared to the Ontario Hydro weld coupons in terms of Charpy V-notched impact, large diameter creep rupture, spiral notched stress rupture and hydrogen sensitivity tests The results showed a general superiority for the temper-bead welds over the conventional and weave bead welds, as regard to the tests conducted in the program The Ontario Hydro welding procedures were found to achieve a high degree of CGHAZ refinement Gleeble simulated samples showed lower properties than the actual welds The temper-bead welding procedures can be used in practice if more attention is paid to root passes and the final layer of fill passes 224 PTB-2-2009 B-18 WRC 175 PVRC Recommendations on Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Materials One objective of the Pressure Vessel Research Committee (PVRC) of the Welding Research Council is to review and present the results of pressure-vessel research in a useful form for designers and code-making bodies Many such reviews with recommendations have been presented In January 1971, PVRC formed a task group, under the Evaluation and Planning Committee, to review current knowledge and prepare recommendations on toughness requirements for ferritic materials in nuclear power plant components The recommendations were requested from PVRC by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee for its use in considering any revisions to the requirements of Section 111-Nuclear Power Plant Components 225 PTB-2-2009 B-19 WRC 265 Interpretive Report on Small Scale Test Correlations with KIC Data Correlations between fracture toughness and small-scale test results are useful in pressure vessel applications due to cost, availability of material and ease of testing The material parameter, fracture toughness, can be used directly in design analysis The small-scale test results, which are not designed to provide the information necessary to predict a failure load or critical flaw size, may provide this information through correlation with the fracture toughness Possible small-scale tests for this type of relationship include the Charpy test, the nil-ductility transition temperature test and the dynamic tear test Correlations of Charpy test results for the upper shelf region and three types of transition region correlations are evaluated When evaluating the proposed correlations, it is important to consider the effects of notch acuity and strain rate The effects of plate position and scatter of the experimental results are also noted Due to the empirical nature of the correlations, no one correlation can be shown to be more accurate for all materials The materials reviewed are steels with yield strengths between 250 and 760 MPa (36 and 110 ksi) A correlation developed for a material under consideration is obviously preferred When such a correlation is not available, the authors have recommended correlations likely to give conservative results 226 PTB-2-2009 B-20 Additional Publications In addition to the publications described in B-1 through B-19, the following publications from the Materials Technology Institute (MTI) should be considered (a) 9230-34 Guidelines for Mothballing Process Plants 1989 and 1998 (b) 9240-30 Guidelines for Assessing Fire & Explosion Damage 1st – 1990 2nd - 1996 (c) 9360-40 Inspection Guidelines for Pressure Vessels & Piping – Vol 1: New Fabrication 1993and 1996 (d) 9490-49 Inspection Guidelines for Pressure Vessels & Piping – Volume 1996 (e) 9494 Pressure Vessels & Piping Inspection Checklists on Computer Disk CD 1996 (f) 9380-45 Corrosion Control in the Chemical Process Industries –2nd Edition 1994 and 1997 (g) 9410-43 Materials of Construction for Once-Through Water Systems 1995 and 1998 (h) 9440-44 Materials Engineering & Risk Management in Chemical Plant Operations 1995 (i) 9495 50 User’s Guide to ASME Standards for Fiberglass Tanks & Vessels 1996 (j) 9501-R3 Surface Preparation of Carbon & Stainless Steels for Non-Destructive Detection of Surface Cracks 1997 (k) 9511-R10 Flaw Detection & Characterization in Heat Exchanger Tubing 1999 (l) 9515 129 A Practical Guide to Field Inspection of FRP Equipment & Piping CD 2001 (m) 9519 Materials Selection for the Chemical Process Industries 2004 (n) 9520 Guidelines for Troubleshooting Water Cooled Heat Exchangers 2004 (o) 9526 56 Implementing & Evergreening RBI in Process Plants 2005 (p) 9528-R19 Nondestructive Test Methods for Furnaces 2004 (q) 9533-R14 Selection & Use of Flux Cored & Gas Metal Arc Welding Processes in the Chemical Process Industry 2004 (r) 9534-R15 Procedures for Qualifying Personnel in Flange Joint Assembly 2005 227 PTB-2-2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges, with deep appreciation, the following individuals for their technical and editorial peer review of this document: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Les Antalffy, Fluor Daniel Jon Batey, The Dow Chemical Company Chuck Becht, Becht Engineering Company Kevin Bodenhamer, Epco, Inc Phil Cacciatore, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Jeff Chandler, DuPont Company Kim Dunleavy, Air Liquide Process & Construction, Inc Gerry Eisenberg, ASME Staff Joseph Frey, Stress Engineering Service Inc Roy Grichuk, Fluor Corp Geoffrey Halley, American Boiler Manufacturer Association Louis Hayden, Engineering Consultant David Lang, FM Global Ron Leonard, Life Cycle Engineering Clark McDonald, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc Urey Miller, CB&I John O'Brien, Chevron Energy Technology Co David Osage, The Equity Engineering Group Inc Terry Parks, The National Board Of B&PV Inspectors Dan Peters, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc Anthony Rangus, Bechtel John Reynolds, Consultant Steve Roberts, Shell Global Solutions Us Inc Clay Rodery, BP North American Products Inc Steve Rossi, ASME Staff Antonio Seijas, Lloyd's Register Capstone, Inc Sid Shah, Exxon Mobil Res & Engrg Takayasu Tahara, T&T Technology 228 A19609